Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

How is this processor different from this Follow

#1 Sep 18 2010 at 10:13 AM Rating: Decent
*
139 posts
How is this Processor different from this processor?

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor HDZ965FBGMBOX
4000MHz 45 nm Deneb 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L... Series: Phenom II X4
L2 Cache: 4 x 512KB
L3 Cache: 6MB
Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm
Model #: HDZ965FBGMBOX
Item #: N82E16819103727
Return Policy: CPU Replacement Only Return Policy


AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor HDZ955FBGMBOX
4000MHz 45 nm Deneb 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L... Series: Phenom II X4
L2 Cache: 4 x 512KB
L3 Cache: 6MB
Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm
Model #: HDZ955FBGMBOX
Item #: N82E16819103808
Return Policy: CPU Replacement Only Return Policy
#2 Sep 18 2010 at 10:15 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
One is 200 Mhz faster?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#3 Sep 18 2010 at 10:37 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,098 posts
I just bought the 965 for the 200MHz reason and 20 to 30 dollar difference in price and the forum talk said amd quad is better than six core for overclocking right now. The cpu seems to be the bottle neck in most of the threads posted here.
____________________________





#4 Sep 18 2010 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good
Sage
*
56 posts
AMD, as far as I'm aware, are far from Intel's i7's performances.
#5bsphil, Posted: Sep 18 2010 at 11:23 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) For the price, AMD crushes Intel.
#6 Sep 18 2010 at 11:44 AM Rating: Decent
*
139 posts
Would you get the 955 or 965 and why. Is the extra 200 MHz really worth it?
#7 Sep 18 2010 at 12:02 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,416 posts
Warmech wrote:
I just bought the 965 for the 200MHz reason and 20 to 30 dollar difference in price and the forum talk said amd quad is better than six core for overclocking right now. The cpu seems to be the bottle neck in most of the threads posted here.

With the six core, oc'ing 3 cores or 6 is the same performance wise, but you can shut off 3 cores, and the remaining 3 will get a boost in performance using power from those cores you are not using. I don't plan on overclocking, so i bought the hexa-core.
____________________________

#8 Sep 18 2010 at 12:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,098 posts
AMD give me spending limits i5,i7 people are top of the heap. AMD 965,asus M4N75TD sli, 1 EVGA SC 460 gtx with 4 gigs ram is all could bring myself to spend with 4 week notice reading in this forum. Between FF14 minimum spec and Beta player comments this is what i think i needed. 8 gigs more mem ,Win7 pro 64bit and 2ND card for future upgrades should let me play the game with high end card players. It's all middle of the road stuff to play a game with the name Final Fantasy. lol ....CPU Bottle neck comes up alot in this forum with people with great cards so the more "cheap" CPU speed the better for me. Page one Sticky is up to 28 pages you'll find a price range reading all that.

Edited, Sep 18th 2010 2:17pm by Warmech
____________________________





#9 Sep 18 2010 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
I have the 955 - it works just fine. Don't expect to run with all the bells and whistles on - but I generally have good performance. If I could have afforded it (I was on a tight budget) I probably would have gone with 965... but I am pretty happy with how the game runs for me now.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#10 Sep 18 2010 at 1:33 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
The 965 is definitely faster, not by a whole lot. It's a relatively small price increase for a relatively small performance increase. They're both great values, if you can afford the extra $20 or whatever it is for the 965 over the 955, definitely go for it. If not, fine. EDIT: The price difference is $15.

The x6 1055t is another small upgrade in price but a bigger increase in performance than the 955 to 965, and it fits into the same motherboard socket as the x4 processors. They're all good value processors, but really that's how AMD is so competitive with Intel. The jump from the 965 to the 1055t is about a ~20% increase in price ($35 more) for about a ~22% increase in performance. Up to you.

Edited, Sep 18th 2010 2:37pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#11 Sep 18 2010 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
**
723 posts
bsphil wrote:
For the price, AMD crushes Intel.

Phenom II x4 965 - $166 - Passmark Score: 4265
Intel Core i5-650 - $180 - Passmark Score: 3099


Eh not really. In the real world, most games and programs do not make use of more than 2 threads. For example, I have an i7 920 which has 4 cores and 8 threads. It's actually better for me to disable hyper threading, which allows me to overclock my CPU to a much higher clock. Most everything I do runs faster this way. Likewise, it's sometimes better to buy a good performing dual core capable of overclocking and push that as far as you can go. The AMD's quad will likely bench better, since benchmark programs tend to make use of all threads, but in a gaming environment the Intel dual core will likely outperform it's competition.

Edited, Sep 18th 2010 3:40pm by Jeraziah
#12 Sep 18 2010 at 3:49 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Jeraziah wrote:
Eh not really. In the real world, most games and programs do not make use of more than 2 threads.
Well that's definitely not true.

Running right now common programs and how many threads they are using:

Firefox - 26 threads
Fraps - 28 threads
Steam (no game running) - 33 threads
AIM - 50 threads
Avast - 51 threads
Winamp - 21 threads
etc.

The problem is in balancing the load between threads. What ends up happening is that there will be a couple threads that are very processor intensive, and a dozen or more threads that are very easily stacked up onto even just a single CPU with negligible drawback.

FFXIV tends to see decreasing returns with more than 4 cores, just because that's enough to handle all of the main process intensive threads.

Edited, Sep 18th 2010 4:54pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#13 Sep 18 2010 at 4:02 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
421 posts
the difference in the two are minimal, they are basically the same processor but one has the multiplier up by 1, if you get an aftermarket cpu cooler, or even if you get stock and your temps are good, (less than 55 degrees C using coretemp and prime 95) you can OC that 955 to 3.6 without upping the voltage.

all you have to do is up the multiplier, its a good processor. with good air cooling I've seen those hit 4ghz stable, but that takes tweeking. I have an older one of those, the 140watt model that came out before those running at 3.8ghz 24/7 and its a good value.

Edited, Sep 18th 2010 6:07pm by Lafaiel
____________________________

#14 Sep 18 2010 at 4:54 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
152 posts
Quote:
the difference in the two are minimal, they are basically the same processor but one has the multiplier up by 1, if you get an aftermarket cpu cooler, or even if you get stock and your temps are good, (less than 55 degrees C using coretemp and prime 95) you can OC that 955 to 3.6 without upping the voltage.

all you have to do is up the multiplier, its a good processor. with good air cooling I've seen those hit 4ghz stable, but that takes tweeking. I have an older one of those, the 140watt model that came out before those running at 3.8ghz 24/7 and its a good value.


Yes. I have the 955 BE overclocked on air(with a good aftermarket cooler) to 3.95 ghz. She's stable, and stays below the 55degrees C).

I read the reviews on every processor out there(intel and AMD) and settled on this one eventually, with an MSI mobo that makes my processor sing;). I made sure the cpu I bought was C3 stepping beforehand, for ease of overclockability.

I'm sure as the Bulldozers get closer to release, I'll invest in watercooling and test the limits of this cpu, since I won't care as much then if I kill it(but right now I need her for ffxiv;).
#15 Sep 18 2010 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,699 posts
Quote:
For example, I have an i7 920 which has 4 cores and 8 threads. It's actually better for me to disable hyper threading, which allows me to overclock my CPU to a much higher clock.


Eh? How much are you trying to overclock it? 4.2Ghz+ or something?
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#16 Sep 19 2010 at 12:50 PM Rating: Good
**
723 posts
bsphil wrote:
Well that's definitely not true.

Running right now common programs and how many threads they are using:

Firefox - 26 threads
Fraps - 28 threads
Steam (no game running) - 33 threads
AIM - 50 threads
Avast - 51 threads
Winamp - 21 threads
etc.


Wrong "thread". Thread for computing can mean multiple things. What I was referring to was the actual processor itself. If you have an i7-920 like I do example, that has 4 physical cores and hyper threading. This gives you a total of 8 threads. A thread is like a stream of data going through the processor. Many games and programs do not make use of 2-4 of these threads. So you usually get a higher performance by clocking the processor as high as possible so that the usable threads process more data.

Deadgye wrote:
Quote:
For example, I have an i7 920 which has 4 cores and 8 threads. It's actually better for me to disable hyper threading, which allows me to overclock my CPU to a much higher clock.


Eh? How much are you trying to overclock it? 4.2Ghz+ or something?


The default clock is 2.66, on air cooling with HT disabled I can get it stable at 3.8 GHz.

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 2:51pm by Jeraziah
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 19 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (19)